Council Minutes
17085
July 5, 2000
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 5, 2000
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in its regular session in the council chambers in City Hall on Wednesday, July 5, 2000 at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: none.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter.
FLOOD REPORT
Charles Grotte, asst. city engineer, reported that the Corps of Engineers had planned on finishing up their alignment design memorandum in June, that is not done yet but anticipate getting it later this month; there was a ground breaking ceremony for the flood protection project on June 26. He stated under the City Staff and Consultant Update, did have four hazardous waste sites that were in the levee alignment and that were evaluated by High Plains Consortium, their report has been completed and has been forwarded to the ND Department of Health for review. He stated under Financing the US House has passed through their committee appropriations at $13 million for our flood protection project for fiscal year 2001 and now will go to the full house and then to Senate. He reported that letters have been sent out to some tenants that were in properties that had been purchased previously asking them to vacate in the next 90 days, about 15 or 20, and were sent to people in Phase I of the project. Greenway Update: Infrastructure removal, called greenway cleanup, are in the process of working on the design for that project which will remove some of the streets, fire hydrants, etc. in areas on the wet side of the dike that will no longer be used for anything so not a safety factor in the future.
Council Member Burke questioned who was responsible for maintenance of the dike, that the issue came up in Riverside Park area where the dikes are quite high and understanding by the Park District and that they didn’t have the equipment to do the high parts of the dike, and that part of the dike downtown immediately north of DeMers is overgrown and quite unsightly.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLAVE REPORTED PRESENT
Mr. Grotte reported that the engineering department and public works department are responsible and just recently got mowing contractors working and will check on those areas.
Council Member Hamerlik questioned the matter of bidding for 9 houses, that there seems to be some gap between specifications and process used if people bidding and declining bid, second high bid, and if that is being reviewed and under consideration. Mr. Grotte stated that two individuals with the same address bid on the same properties 6 or 7 times, not sure if they didn’t understand the bidding process, that they recommended award to the high bidder who declined and now to the second high bidder, and if that person rejects the bid the recommendation from the city attorney’s office, just bar them from bidding on future houses. Council Member Hamerlik stated concern so that it doesn’t happen again, and would like to have staff review that. Mr. Grotte stated they are if someone submits a sealed bid they will have an opportunity at bid opening to raise their bid.
Council Member Hoff stated that in regard to these invasive species, and that under the Greenway cleanup item getting rid of a number of invasive species and diseased trees, and that at a previous meeting there was some discussion about saving some of the invasive species because they retain the original character of the area and would like to have some information about how these choices are being made about what trees to get rid of.
Council Member Lunak questioned whether the temporary dike on Belmont Road was going to become permanent. Mr. Grotte stated that it is temporary, new levee will be 100 ft. east.
Council Member Gershman stated they were seeing questions that could have been answered earlier if received update earlier than tonight on their desks and requested information as early as possible. Council Member Hamerlik stated that the council had asked Mr. Vein to give an oral presentation the first meeting of the month, which was supplemented by a written update. Council Member Brooks asked that report be included in their Friday packets.
APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 19, 27 AND 27, 2000
Typewritten copies of the minutes of the regular city council meeting held on Monday, June 19, adjourned meeting of June 27, and organizational meeting of June 27, 2000.
Council Member Hoff asked that the minutes of the previous meeting reflect the fact that he spoke against the special council holiday, that the minutes stated that it passed on a voice vote and he wanted the record to reflect that he was against the special holiday and was a bad precedent. Mayor Brown stated that will be noted.
Council Member Bjerke stated that the item relative to change in method of benefit calculation from “7 completed, consecutive, calendar years” to “84 completed, consecutive, calendar years” which should read “84 completed, consecutive, calendar months”.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Brooks that these minutes be approved, with corrections. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3852, RELATING TO COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN, PERTAINING TO GRAND FORKS-EAST
GRAND FORKS 2022 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
An ordinance relating to the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII. Article 8. Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update (1999 Transit, Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Street and Highway Element)”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 15, 2000 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
Dennis Potter, City Planner, gave an overview of the matter, that this process starts with the actions of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the East Grand Forks-Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Agency which is a bi-state independent long-range transportation planning organization, it’s organized pursuant to federal law and undertakes long term transportation planning for the two cities as well as parts of Grand Forks County and eastern part of Polk County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization is required to have a long range transportation plan, its required to update that plan on a five-year cycle, the last update cycle was to begin in 1997, due to the flood that was postponed, and they are now just completing their update cycle. Part of the work that they have undertaken involves looking at all the transportation elements and bringing the unified plan together in their process. From their work the City of Grand Forks during the update cycle takes the long range transportation plan, reviews it and then presents it to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the recommendation to adopt all or parts of the MPO plan that are relevant and important to the community of Grand Forks. The Planning and Zoning Commission did undertake that review process and their recommendation is before the council this evening for public hearing and possible final vote to adopt the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks long-range transportation plan including all elements, maps and information contained therein except for the designation of 17th Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South as inter-city bridge locations, secondly to request that the Metropolitan Planning Organization continue studying the need for specific bridge crossings after the 2000 census data is available and also after the data from the next comprehensive traffic update analysis is available, and finally that the residents from the potentially affected areas be included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s next update study of the inter-city bridge question.
There were some questions as to whether Elks Drive had been left out of the resolution. Mr. Potter stated that the reason Elks Drive was left out in the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission is that there was no mention of Elks Drive in the MPO’s long range transportation plan, and they have already adopted their long range transportation plan, and that he would conclude that it is out of consideration at this point in time; that it could reappear in the next update analysis which will take place in two years.
Council Member Christensen questioned if after we get census data and traffic count, where would they propose that a bridge be located if it wouldn’t be either on 17th or 32nd unless we go south to Merrifield or 47th. Mr. Potter stated his thoughts are not to try to make a judgement on where we should be locating a bridge until those two data sets are available and we rerun the traffic model as the basis for the MPO’s plan; and from that then he would be able to make a judgment and recommendation, but would not want to guess on that. Council Member Christensen asked if council adopts the recommendation tonight does that take those streets off any future consideration for this council and perhaps the next council; and asked how the citizens know that the proposed bridge location is laid to rest. Mr. Potter stated that the only way that the citizens of Grand Forks will know that the bridge issue is laid to rest is when the Metropolitan Planning Organization decides to either not seek a specific bridge location or as long as this city continues to say it is not interested in having a new inter-city bridge at a specific location, and would take one of those two actions. He stated that the MPO’s plan does include 17th and 32nd, and our adoption action says that the City of Grand Forks is not interested in having an inter-city bridge at either of those two locations, and until we agree as a city to where the bridge is going to go, from a practical standpoint it will not be built. Council Member Christensen asked how they could get the issue resolved so don’t have to have this issue continually brought to the forefront so the residents in the fourth and fifth wards know that there is or isn’t going to be a bridge at one of those streets. Mr. Potter stated that there are probably two actions that could take place: 1) that we continue constantly not seek to have a bridge built, that as long as the city council stays to that position then the council can say there will not be a bridge built; 2) to continue to work with the Metropolitan Planning Organization and attempt to convince them and the members on that Board that for the policy health of both communities that it is not in either city’s interest to continue to seek the need for a new bridge, a bridge that is at a minimum 20 years out in terms of what the traffic model says the need will occur. Council Member Christensen asked how to implement that. Mr. Potter stated that the City of Grand Forks has four members on the MPO and East Grand Forks has four, from a voting block standpoint, end up with a stalemate, if each side votes four to four, and as long as we have people that are willing to continue to discuss and try to convince the East Side that a specific bridge location is not appropriate at this time in time, then we are making a good will attempt if, for whatever reason, we are not successful in convincing the East Side that we should not talk about a specific bridge location then we will continue in all likelihood to have this type of a dialogue every two to five years when the MPO does it’s upgrade; next upgrade will be two years from now, as three years out of sequence in terms of the five-year update. He stated there should have been one in 1997 but because of the flood the federal government gave the MPO a grace period, and that period runs out this year, and that the federal government has said in another two years you have to go through another update cycle.
Council Member Martinson asked if he could reassure them that this does not impact federal funding by not siting a bridge; Mr. Potter stated he could give that assurance because the federal funding is tied to the adoption of a long range transportation plan by the MPO, that as long as the MPO has a federally recognized valid long range transportation plan then our funding is not in jeopardy. It was noted that if the council should adopt the ordinance tonight does not affect what the MPO does, that they can adopt the plan on the table as it is which includes corridors at 17th and 32nd. He stated that the EGF council did not pass the resolution that excluded 17th and 32nd. Mr. Potter stated that the City of Grand Forks has two city council people, one from the Planning and Zoning Commission and one from the Grand Forks County Commission on the MPO.
Council Member Christensen asked if they had a continuing resolution of the city council instructing our members to always vote against the inclusion of a bridge on 17th or 32nd and that would always be a deadlock on this one, and Mr. Potter stated they could approve a plan without a bridge because no consensus could be made and that could go forward to the State, but it would take five votes to get that.
Council Member Glassheim stated that if the MPO was deadlocked at 4 to 4 we would run the serious risk of losing funding on both sides, if no plan were adopted by the MPO, that we would not then receive federal funding. Mr. Potter stated that the federal representative for North Dakota has said that at some point in time the federal government will be obligated to either reduce or halt funding for construction, and we need to be careful in how we look at this terminology, that as it was explained to him, halt construction funding means that the dollars would be placed in some form of escrow account and would not be available to us for construction activities until a long range transportation plan was adopted, the dollars would then be released from the escrow; that if you get it into an escrow account you don’t have those dollars available for use in your construction program.
Council Member Gershman stated he would recommend that they get federal regulations re. funding in writing.
Mayor Brown asked for public comments.
Ann Sande, 1110 Belmont Road, stated it is important that based on Mr. Potter’s comments about including citizens from the 32nd Avenue and 17th Avenue neighborhoods, that they should also include someone from the Minnesota-4th neighborhood when you are making decisions on a bridge because this will certainly impact them.
Council Member Glassheim moved an amendment to the recommendation that includes someone from the Minnesota and 4th corridor. Council Member Klave stated that 3) of the resolution states that residences from potentially affected areas be involved, and that will include Minnesota/4th .
Dr. Homer Rovelstad, 3203 Belmont Road, suggested that the plan as presented by the MPO is flawed in several areas, legally, financially and from the standpoint of public acceptance by most of the people in the affected areas; stated they need some help in figuring out what they can do with this problem so they can get some closure and finality to this.
Gordon Caldis, 1632 Belmont Road, stated the bridge issue is one of the most unsettling things in the city, been unnecessary with respect to the preservation and reservation of the corridors on 17th Avenue and 32nd Avenue, because those are congressional section lines adopted by the U.S. Congress when this state was organized into the state of North Dakota, they are there permanently; and urged council to consider adopting the plan so they do have the plan but exclude bridge site corridors and studies because unnecessary.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reported having considered the matter of the request from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), for final approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Transportation Plan Update, Year 2022 Street and Highway Element, 1999 Transit, Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements), together with all maps, information and data contained therein and approval of a resolution amending same, and recommended amending the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Transportation Plan, the 1999 Transit, Bikeway, Pedestrian Element, the Year 2022 Street
and Highway Element, excluding the designation of 17th Avenue South and 32nd Avenue south as inter-city bridge locations, together with all maps, information and data contained herein. Also, the recommendation is that the MPO continue studying the need for a specific bridge crossing after the 2000 census data is available and data from the next comprehensive traffic update is also available and that residents from the potentially affected areas be involved in any studies related to bridge locations. The Commission also recommends approval of the ordinance and resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Upon call for the question and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik - 13; voting “nay”: Council Member Bakken - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Mr. Swanson reported that the resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is a committee of the city council and are recording the fact that they have adopted the resolution, and the true action by this body is ordinance and need to give final action tonight or future date. He stated the ordinance officially incorporates the resolution terms into the City Code in a formal process.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance, and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik - 13; voting “nay”: Council Member Bakken - 1. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE KNOWN
AS THE RED RIVER RENAISSANCE
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance enacting Article 3 of Chapter XXIV of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the establishment of a public enterprise known as the Red River Renaissance”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 5, 2000, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Council Member Kreun moved to table second reading of the ordinance until the next meeting (July 17, 2000); Council Member Martinson seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke - 11; voting “nay”: Council Members Glassheim, Bakken, Hoff - 3. Mayor Brown declared the motion tabled for two weeks.
TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO PENALTIES FOR SPECIFIED TRAFFIC AND MOTOR
VEHICLE OFFENSES, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR
SPECIFIED CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND FOR IMPOUNDING
ANIMALS AT LARGE UNTIL JULY 17, 2000
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending Section 8-1503 relating to penalties for specified traffic and motor vehicle offenses, Section 9-0503 relating to penalties for specified criminal offenses, and Section 11-0112 relating to the fee for impounding animals at large”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 5, 2000, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Council Member Burke stated when this matter was first presented there was some reporting that tied the increased ticket prices to retaining some police positions that would be coming off grant in the next two years, and that is not the intent and some discussion that the intent of the increased fines was to try to change some behavior and some citing of higher fines in other communities, and would like to know if there was any information offered that indicated in fact that the higher fines did change the behavior of drivers in other communities, or to generate additional revenue. Chief Packett stated that approx. two years ago staff made a review of the fine structure around the state and made a recommendation to his office that they should research our fine structure compared with other cities in the state, and due to the change in council and the change of the public safety members about two years ago that was put on hold and brought back to public safety a few months ago. He stated this was inappropriately reported even somewhat by their own staff that this was somehow connected with an attempt to generate revenue, and their recommendation to council is to raise the fine structures to match other cities in the state, in fact to change driver behavior, etc. and is not connected with any attempt to raise revenues for the city, and thinks that would be improper and any revenues generated by the city and to the police department are strictly dictated by the mayor and council. Chief Packett stated that there have been studies over the years that would indicate that saturation patrol increased attention on various violations does in fact change behavior, visibility, the presence of officers, the presence of an aggressive force in the field does change driver behavior; and higher fines would have an impact on all of us.
Council Member Hoff read his statement into the record objecting to the increase in penalties. Document No. 7996.1 - Statement.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Burke to table the second reading of the ordinance. Upon voice vote, the motion carried.
TABLE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING
TO OATHS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance repealing Sections 3-0602 through 3-0604 and adopting a new Article 1 to Chapter III of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the oaths of municipal officers”, which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on June 19, 2000, was presented and read for consideration on second reading.
Council Member Hoff stated that some officers which have on previous occasions sworn oaths to faithfully discharge their duties will no longer be required to swear those oaths, and was interested in the
impetus behind this item and how this came about.
Mr. Swanson stated he would refer him to a March 24, 1995 opinion of the Attorney General in which she identified what officers were provided for by State law for city council members and identified them as the mayor, council members, municipal judge, auditor, assessor, city attorney, city engineer and other officers as are deemed necessary; he was requested by the auditor’s office, finance and administration office, to look at our Code and whether our Code was in compliance with State law, that he indicated that our Code was essentially silent to that and was asked to draft an ordinance specifically identifying what municipal officers are required to sign an oath, that is also consistent with NDCC 40-13-03 Oath of Municipal Officers, that he is not aware of any officer that is now being no longer required to sign an oath of office. Council Member Hoff also asked if he was aware of any officers who served duties beyond the terms that were delineated on their oaths of office. Mr. Swanson stated that if he was referring to a member of the Downtown Development Commission, they are not considered an officer under either State law or the Attorney General’s opinion. The city auditor stated we have in the past because of lack of clarity within our Code have perhaps sworn anybody who stepped into any position in city government and that’s why asked for clarity on this issue. Mr. Swanson stated that if oath of office is not required by law it is not a qualification to hold the position and cannot eliminate, limit or alter the term of the appointment, anyone could take an oath, whether required by law or not, and won’t change the requirements, only positions required by law to have an oath are those previously listed. Mr. Swanson also stated that under State law and local law those members appointed will continue to serve until their successors are re-appointed or appointed even if it extends beyond their initial terms.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Burke to table this matter for two weeks. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim - 9; voting “nay”: Council Members Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 134, PROJECT NO. 5155
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Street Lighting District No. 134, Project No. 5155, street lighting in Rivers Edge Resubdivision, Rivers Edge Drive, had expired on June 29, 2000, and that he had received no written protests.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Babinchak introduced the following resolution as to protests which was presented and read: Document No. 7997 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Klave that we do hereby find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Street Lighting District No. 134, Project No. 5155, as no protests were filed, and further that the resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 133, PROJECT NO. 5154
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Street Lighting District No. 133, Project No. 5154, street lighting in Country View First Resubdivision, Desiree Drive, Blocks 1 and 2, had expired on June 29, 2000, and that he had received no written protests.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Babinchak introduced the following resolution as to protests which was presented and read: Document No. 7998 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Klave that we do hereby find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Street Lighting District No. 133, Project No. 5154, as no protests were filed, and further that the resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
RECEIVE TABULATION OF BIDS, ESTIMATES OF
TOTAL COST AND AWARD CONTRACT, STREET
LIGHTING PROJECT NO. 5155, DISTRICT NO. 134 AND
STREET LIGHTING PROJECT NO. 5154, DISTRICT NO. 133
The city auditor presented and read tabulation of bids which had been received and opened on Monday, June 26, 2000 for Street Lighting Project No. 5155, District No. 134, street lighting in Rivers Edge Resubdivision, Rivers Edge Drive, and for Street Lighting Project No. 5154, District No. 133, street lighting in Country View 1st Addition, indicating that Ron’s Electric, Inc. was the low bidder based upon their bids in the amounts of $16,460.97 and $6,631.24, respectively, for a total bid of $23,092.21: Document No. 7999 - Bid Tabulation.
The city engineer’s estimates of total cost on Street Lighting Project No. 5155, District No. 134, in the amount of $8,500.00, and on Street Lighting Project No. 5154, District No. 133, in the amount of $21,000.00, were presented and read.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the construction bids for Project No. 5155, District No. 134, street lights in Rivers Edge Phase II and Project 5154, District 133, street lights in Country View 1st Addition, and recommended to accept the low bid of Ron’s Electric, Inc. in the amount of $23,092.21.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
Council Member Klave introduced the following resolution which was presented and read: Document No. 8000 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Babinchak that this resolution awarding the contract for Street Lighting Project No. 5155, District No. 134, and Street Lighting Project No. 5154, District No. 133, to Ron’s Electric, Inc. be and is hereby adopted. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the resolution adopted and the contract awarded.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE BUILDING TO 216 SOUTH 3RD STREET
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by EAPC for Urban Development to move building from temporary location at intersection of Division Avenue and South 3rd Street to 216 South 3rd Street (commercial building), had been published and posted as required.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Bakken to declare an insufficiency of protest. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
Committee No. 3, Public Service, reported having considered the application for moving permit from temporary location at intersection of Division Avenue and South 3rd Street to 216 South 3rd Street (commercial building), and recommended to approve application for moving permit subject to the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Klave and seconded by Council Member Bakken that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Mr. Swanson stated that the City owns the building and his office will require the closing on sale of the property (two lots) to the City to occur first, and that they are acting upon the permit to move it at a future date. There are no contingencies in the purchase agreement with regard to the moving of the building; Mr. Swanson stated they have completed the title search, title is clear, closing date scheduled for approx. July 15.
Council Member Burke questioned how the City was intending to dispose of the building on the lot that the City is purchasing. Mr. Swanson stated his understanding of the negotiations for that require us to enter into a lease of that building with the present owner for some time, and if the City wished to dispose of either of those properties, there is a process in the Code in which you would have to declare it surplus and advertise it for sale; that if attempting to sell the existing building, it would be subject to a lease, as far as the building being relocated onto that lot unless you were conveying it to a non-profit organization you would have to either have RFP’s or public bidding of some form after you declare it surplus.
Council Member Gershman stated that is not a good location for that building, next to parking ramp, and if it is as important historically as we think it is, how much have we exhausted other locations in downtown Grand Forks.
John O’Leary, Urban Development, stated this is no less than the fifth site in the immediate vicinity of the original old town, which is South 3rd Street, where boomtown buildings from the 1880’s and 1890’s, there are two or three examples of this architecture left and all are in that general vicinity; this building has sat for almost a year on blocks on South 3rd Street, neighboring businesses are less than pleased with looking at that every day, that they have brought a number of sites to this body as potential location for this building, each site for one reason or another (either too far from original townsite or not a site that was acceptable to this body, not acceptable to the neighbors), something was wrong, and which is why buying this site, it was the last site that was potentially available for relocation of this building, and are out of alternatives. He stated that the Historic Preservation on State level were most enthusiastic about this site because two lots down there is another boomtown building which has been restored. by its present owner and occupant. He stated there are three things that they have to do to get this building moved and to resolve this: 1) need to issue contract to have the building rehabilitated and that was done last February, and that would call for the relocation of the building, renovation of the exterior façade, installation of a new store front; 2) the physical move of the building; and 3) permit process to move the building.
Council Member Christensen questioned what plan was for the interior of the building. Mr. O’Leary reported that the inside of the building is part of our contract, the rehab will include mechanical, electrical systems, insulating and sheet rock but nothing else; that whatever the council decides to do - put out an RFP for the building, ask for proposals to acquire the building from us and a new owner will be responsible for the interior. He stated we will have to mitigate the lead-based paint on the second floor but that’s doable; the acquisition of the site will be around $82,000 and have $97,000 in rehab contracts out there. He stated there is no cost-benefit; however, there is a mandate by the Federal Government that we comply with the historic preservation requirements, when Congress passed a $500 million supplemental appropriation which allowed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to give us a grant for $171 million, they waived a lot of the federal regulations, one that was not waived was the requirement to historically mitigate properties that are going to be displaced through either the flood or dike process. He stated what we have negotiated: the saving of the boomtown building, saving of the Met and money obligated out of CDBG funds for both of these purposes; and the saving of an x number of historical single family units that are located either on the wet side of the dike or in the dike alignment, that number started at around 50 homes, it was reduced to 35, later reduced to 25, and now down to around 10 or 12 homes which will be relocated to dry side lots that the City owns; and in return for that received the release of $171 million and permission to tear down 850 homes on the wet side that were damaged or destroyed by the flood and the removal of 35 or 40 historically significant commercial buildings, which were also destroyed by the flood. He stated they did other mitigation, took photographs and recorded historically what these buildings were about, but that was the negotiated settlement with the State and Interior Department, the negotiations took a long time but not nearly as long as they took in many other cities that were going through the same process we were in previous years; that he thinks the State was reasonable in their negotiations and we tried to be reasonable in what we put on the table in return.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 13 votes affirmative; Council Member Hoff voted against the motion.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
The city auditor’s statement of investment activity for the period ending June 30, 2000, was presented and read. It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Martinson to receive and file the report. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE BILLS
Vendor Payment Listing No. 00-11, dated July 5, 2000, and totaling $1,618,554.12, all having been audited by the city auditor for payment in accordance with regulations, was presented and read.
It was moved by Council Member Lunak and seconded by Council Member Bakken that these bills be allowed and that the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 14; voting “nay”: none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the bills ordered paid.
Mayor Brown asked if there were any items that the council wished to send back to committee for further consideration. There were none.
APPROVE REQUEST FOR SIX-MONTH LEAVE OF
ABSENCE BY EMPLOYEE
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of request by employee for six-month leave of absence w/o pay (Lana MacCarthy), and recommended approval of up to a six-month leave without pay for Ms. MacCarthy under City Code Section 6-0810(2).
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 14 votes affirmative.
APPROVE CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP OF MARKET
ANALYSIS COMMITTEE
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of membership of market analysis committee, and recommended that former Council Member Beyer continue membership of the Market Analysis Committee.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson to amend the motion to consider Council Member Lunak, who is well qualified to fill in on this committee (to replace former Council Member Beyer). Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.
Dan Gordon, Human Resources, stated that the justification of asking that Mrs. Beyer continue on this committee is that they basically have one or two meetings left with the final presentation. He stated that this started with a request for compensation and benefits analysis for all current employees, used consultant to do analysis, to survey participants to see how certain jobs that we bench-marked against those in other communities, compare when the information comes back the committee reviews that to see if results and survey participants are valid, that if they decide on a new member that person can be brought up to date quite easily, and have presentation from consultant on July 25 to market analysis team, and then have committee of the whole meeting to provide solutions, recommendations on how we can better compete as far as the value of our positions. The committee consists of two members of the city council, two members of the Civil Service Commission, one employee representative, one department head representative, a mayor’s representative and Human Resources director. Mr. Gordon stated their intent and purpose are to look at fair and equitable compensation and can only do that through a valid market analysis, which is what they are trying to accomplish.
Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Lunak, Christensen, Kreun, Martinson, Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Burke, Gershman - 9; voting “nay”: Council Members Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Hamerlik, Glassheim 5. Mayor Brown declared the amendment passed.
Upon call for the question on the motion, as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried.
APPROVE LEASE WITH NORTH DAKOTA HIGHWAY
PATROL
Committee No. 1, Finance, reported having considered the matter of lease with North Dakota Highway Patrol, and recommended to approve the lease with the North Dakota Highway Patrol as recommended.
It was moved by Council Member Babinchak and seconded by Council Member Hamerlik that this recommendation be and is hereby approved.
Council Member Hoff stated there is actually no increase in the lease agreement because they are amortizing the $100 they’ve been paying every month for the phone system, that he questioned why this lease was not being increased by 3% to reflect inflation and cost of living.